A History of Microsoft's AntiCompetitive Behavior

[CrashMan]

WereKitten said:

vlad321 said:

 

Gates legally bought DOS's rights to license to others for 25k and the full thing for 50k. If Seattle had kept DOS, then they wouldn't have done shit with it, they weren't doign shit with it when they bought it so cheaply, they only started whining complaining and bitching when they saw that DOS could sell millions when done right (bundle/pre-install). As to IBM, they indeed scammed them, just like gates scammed Jobs before that. It wasn't even scamming, just changing directions. Microsoft was supporting OS/2 until they noticed that W3.0 was selling milions due to bundling, then they dropped OS/2.

Would I rather pay cheaper costs for a W3.0 bundle over OS/2? Of course, and millions of others did as well apparently. Think of it liek this, ends justify the means. Microsoft offered a cheap usable OS and ave it away cheaply to everyone. This way many more could make use of a copmuter than if Apple's or IBM's expensive OSes were the only ones around.

They could have pushed to have OS/2 bundled at a discount as well, but they rather a) started working on a very different and more advanced kernel for the next iteration of OS/2 that later became NT and b) started codename Chicago, that later became Windows 95, for the home market.

What would they have gained by doing this?  How was this in their best interest?  It obviously wasn't, as the road they took led them to being the software giant they are today.

MS took advantage of naive vendors and opportunities provided to them.  Both IBM and Apple could have protected themselves and they didn't.  That is how business works at that level.